Does the NYT article mean we are close to the real explosion?

Since Mueller has such tight control over the information about his investigation, I assume that the New York Times article on Trump was released with his knowledge and permission.

Could this mean that the end game is beginning? Might this have been released in order to start expanding the public's awareness of Trump's culpability so when the full report is released there will be a more general acceptance of it?

2. I wish the story was blowing up everywhere. I don't see that we are there yet.

3. This reminds me of twenty years ago

I did a lot of stealth reading on the Freeper site, and they were all hanging breathlessly on every leak from the Starr report. In the end, it made no difference in who was in the White House, because more reich-wingers were excited about it and most Senators didn't think that much of it.

10. So a good media is one who goes to officials

It may be that the NYT is pissed that there's a political impasse and decided to fire a salvo to weaken the anti-Democratic side.

It may be that an editor finally decided that the story had enough substance to print.

It may be that they're frustrated that all the adverts that it's "Mueller time" didn't work out as planned and when faced with discouragement on the part of readers that it will ever be Mueller time have to remind them that it takes time to make a good bier--but something's still brewing.

Picking the assumption that confirms what we believe because it confirms what we believe is a cognitive bias. It's especially bad when there's no need to pick any of the assumptions.

Personally, what I've seen of the NYT coverage is old news repackaged for those who don't want to remember or who don't remember.

It's like the coverage a couple of days ago that Trump's suddenly said "steel slats" are okay--it's news because it's new, he just changed his mind weeks into the government shutdown. It shows weakness, it's a shift! The end is in sight. Except that this was reported a couple of weeks ago. It's not a shift. And that end that's in sight is more of a butt. Trump may cave, but that's not evidence that it's seconds away.

When Mueller was appointed he was appointed to a counterintelligence investigation because there was evidence sufficient to appoint him. That evidence had to be noticed and assembled by somebody. There were FISA wiretaps on various and sundry prior to the '16 election. That implies an investigation. If Rosenstein was thinking about wearing a wire in meeting with Trump prior Mueller's appointment, it means that he had suspicions prior to accepting to oversee Mueller. I mean, FBI folk were already trying to find ways to dispose of Trump the day after the election and playing word games with things like "confidential" ("yeah, it's absolutely confidential, but that doesn't mean I won't be taking notes and then make sure they get leaked&quot. To think otherwise is to be naive to the point of self-deception in service of deceiving others.

So now it's news that there was somebody investigating this? It was front-page news 2 years ago. I personally don't see much new in this news. Then again, I don't find that my beliefs about Trump really matter much when I'm not in the voting booth.

The article was almost certainly not released with knowledge or permission from Mueller. However, the reporters and NYT managing editors were certainly made aware from the former officials of the importance of appropriate timing of release to avoid reporting this before Mueller's probe was approaching conclusion so as to not interfere or jeopardize the investigation.

The former officials who are the sources may have encouraged NY Times to go ahead to report this now because of the relevant events of the Barr hearing coming up this week plus the Mnuchin sanction lifting being scrutinized so that the public and politicians involved all understand the seriousness to national security involved.